Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[SteveII]

1. I'm glad you admit that the criteria is arbitrary. I and 90% of the world have no trouble in believing in the supernatural so do not dismiss evidence simply because it does not conform to a naturalistic worldview. 

2. Then you do not understand the definition of evidence. Don't be one of those people who say this is not evidence--it make you sound foolish. http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

3. You are conflating belief about how the world worked with how to interpret things they saw happen with their own eyes. Even first century people knew the difference between healed and not healed, alive and dead, water and wine.

1. Why use the word 'admit'? Are you under the impression that I'm, like, the spawn of satan who knows you're right but just doesn't want to say it? I'd suggest, if you want to achieve anything productive, change your conception of my motives. I am trying to understand your argument, not trying to punch you out. I would be thrilled to learn it is valid, but I'm not yet convinced.

Anyways, you're pulling out percentages. I just googled it, and an estimated 32% of people in the world are Christians. Hitler won 44% of the popular vote in Germany in 1933. So, by your argument that the proportion of people sheeping an argument increases its validity, Hitler's views are better than the Christian ideology? If 90% of a school class gets a test question wrong, is their empirically false answer now right by virtue of the number of misinformed students in the class?

2. You don't need to be condescending. I'm saying that nothing you quoted is actually evidence of anything. You just listed different formats for expressing information, not any actual evidence. If you have actual evidence of god, not just a bullet point list of random forms that evidence could be in, please provide.

3. Sorry, have you heard eyewitness testimony from these people? Have you seen the events that you believe in here? Are you really taking the stance that there could not possibly be a false account of something witnessed by goat herders 2000 years ago because humans are just so damn objective?

1. I apologize. You said there is no philosophical basis for classifying something as extraordinary--I agree. You said "we demand it because we want to draw good conclusions to make good decisions". I took both of these statements together to mean that the demand for extraordinary evidence is subjective. Correct me if I misunderstood.

90% of the world does not believe in an argument or have arrived at a conclusion based on evidence. I am saying 90% of the world intuitively believes in the supernatural (and this has been true throughout the ages). I think the number is far far higher because I think most are born that way. My point was then that without the imposition of a natualistic worldview, most people don't demand extraordinary evidence -- just ordinary evidence.

2. I apologize again. On just about every page of this thread, someone has told me there is no evidence. It is a stupid statement and I thought you were saying the same. The list I gave was categories of evidence that are available to examine and how they support each other. I am certainly not going to fill up 30 more pages fleshing each one out. If you have a specific question, I would be happy to attempt an answer. 

3. No, they are dead and I was not there. I am taking the stance that there is not one shred of evidence of mass deceit or conspiracy in the NT. 'Goat herders' is not only inaccurate, but a disingenuous attempt strengthen your argument--the technical term--ad hominem.

---

If we go with "atheists make no claims" then as to the question of is there a God, we have some evidence that there is and on the other side, we have no evidence there is not (I'll even grant you by definition). My point was and is that if there can only be evidence on one side of the equation, the distinction or need of 'extraordinary evidence' is meaningless. Any evidence is sufficient to increase the probability, because there is no rebuttal evidence to overcome. 

I understand your point of view.... but the thing is, if we follow your logic, anything that imagination can conjure up will, by default, have some evidence to support it, while having no evidence to support its non-existence.
As one can easily see, this reasoning cannot be applied to anything, for it delivers no reliable conclusion.
And "anything" includes the answer to the question of is there a god.

For the same reason, I pointed out that strong atheism actually would be the extraordinary claim because it is doing so with no ordinary evidence.

For strong atheism, the one that claims that there is absolutely no god, I agree. We have no way of knowing that for sure.
However, one needs some pragmatism... Should I hold a-force-ism to the same standard and entertain the notion that the Force does exist and a few individuals can tap into it and perform telekinesis, mind control and prescience? Is the claim that the Force does not exist as extraordinary as the claim that no god exists? Conceptually, what is the difference between these two negative claims?

I am not saying you don't need evidence in the theism column--you do, the more the better. But ordinary evidence, like eyewitness testimony for example, can carry the same weight as in ordinary claims. I have never contended that such evidence is conclusive proof--only reasonable to rely on. 

In the same way, your force-ism needs to have ordinary evidence to support its claim of truth--the more the better. If there is an absence of even ordinary evidence, the claim is reasonable to reject.